Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access December 17, 2019

How does peoples’ perception of control depend on the criticality of a task performed by a robot

Adeline Chanseau EMAIL logo , Kerstin Dautenhahn , Kheng Lee Koay , Michael L. Walters , Gabriella Lakatos and Maha Salem

Abstract

Robot companions are starting to become more common and people are becoming more familiar with devices such as Google Home, Alexa or Pepper, one must wonder what is the optimum way for people to control their devices? This paper presents an investigation into how much direct control people want to have of their robot companion and how dependent this is on the criticality of the tasks the robot performs. A live experiment was conducted in the University of Hertfordshire Robot House, with a robot companion performing four different type of tasks. The four tasks were: booking a doctor’s appointment, helping the user to build a Lego character, doing a dance with the user, and carrying biscuits for the user. The selection of these tasks was based on our previous research to define tasks which were relatively high and low in criticality. The main goal of the study was to find what level of direct control over their robot participants have, and if this was dependent on the criticality of the task performed by the robot. Fifty people took part in the study, and each experienced every task in a random order. Overall, it was found that participants’ perception of control was higher when the robot was performing a task in a semi-autonomous mode. However, for the task “carrying biscuits”, although participants perceived to be more in control with the robot performing the task in a semi-autonomous mode, they actually preferred to have the robot performing the task automatically (where they felt less in control). The results also show that, for the task “booking a doctor’s appointment”, considered to be the most critical of all four tasks, participants did not prefer that the robot chose the date of the appointment as they felt infantilised.

References

[1] IRobot, https://www.irobot.com/roomba (Last accessed 25/06/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[2] J.-Y. Sung, L. Guo, R. E. Grinter, H. I. Christensen, “My Roomba Is Rambo”: Intimate Home Appliances, Springer, 2007Search in Google Scholar

[3] Moulinex, https://www.moulinex.fr/Cuisson/Robotcuiseur-Companion/c/cooking+food+processors (Last accessed 29/01/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[4] Ubtech, https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/20/16681396/amazon-alexa-powered-lynx-robot-ubtechrobotics (Last accessed 29/01/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[5] B. Whitby, Sometimes it’s hard to be a robot: A call for action on the ethics of abusing artificial agents, Interacting with Computers, 2008, 20(3), 326–33310.1016/j.intcom.2008.02.002Search in Google Scholar

[6] B. Whitby, Do you want a robot lover? the ethics of caring technologies, Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics, 2011, 233–248Search in Google Scholar

[7] A. Sharkey, N. Sharkey, Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly, Ethics and information technology, 2012, 14(1), 27–4010.1007/s10676-010-9234-6Search in Google Scholar

[8] J. Bernotat, F. Eyssel, Can (‘t) wait to have a robot at home?-japanese and german users’ attitudes toward service robots in smart homes, In: 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, 2018, 15–2210.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525659Search in Google Scholar

[9] B. Shneiderman, P. Maes, Direct manipulation vs. interface agents, Interactions, 1997, 4(6), 42–6110.1145/267505.267514Search in Google Scholar

[10] R. Pekelney, R. Chu, Design criteria of an ergonomic mouse computer input device, In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1995, 39(5), 369–37310.1177/154193129503900516Search in Google Scholar

[11] M. W. Gallagher, K. H. Bentley, D. H. Barlow, Perceived control and vulnerability to anxiety disorders: A metaanalytic review, Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2014, 38(6), 571–58410.1007/s10608-014-9624-xSearch in Google Scholar

[12] A. Chanseau, K. Dautenhahn, K. L. Koay, M. Salem, Who is in charge? sense of control and robot anxiety in human-robot interaction, In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, 2016, 743–74810.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745202Search in Google Scholar

[13] P. Haggard, V. Chambon, Sense of agency, Current Biology, 2012, 22(10), R390–R39210.1016/j.cub.2012.02.040Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] A. Chanseau, K. Dautenhahn, M. L. Walters, K. L. Koay, G. Lakatos, M. Salem, Does the appearance of a robot influence people’s perception of task criticality?, In: 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, 2018, 1057–106210.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525663Search in Google Scholar

[15] Google Duplex, https://www.androidauthority.com/ultimate-it-certification-bundle-983274/ (Last accessed 25/06/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[16] E. Pacherie, The sense of control and the sense of agency, Psyche, 2007, 13(1), 1–30Search in Google Scholar

[17] H. M. Lefcourt, Locus of control, Academic Press, 199110.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50013-7Search in Google Scholar

[18] H. A. Yanco, J. L. Drury, A taxonomy for human-robot interaction, In: Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Human-Robot Interaction, 2002, 111–119Search in Google Scholar

[19] S. G. Tzafestas, Human-robot social interaction, In: Sociorobot World, Springer, 2016, 4, 53–6910.1007/978-3-319-21422-1_4Search in Google Scholar

[20] J. Guiochet, M. Machin, H. Waeselynck, Safety-critical advanced robots: A survey, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Elsevier, 2017, 94, 43–5210.1016/j.robot.2017.04.004Search in Google Scholar

[21] J. Dai, P. Taylor, H. Liu, H. Lin, Folding algorithms and mechanisms synthesis for robotic ironing, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 2004, 16(1/2), 204–21410.1108/09556220410520487Search in Google Scholar

[22] N. Ezer, A. D. Fisk, W. A. Rogers, More than a servant: Self- reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home, In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2009, 53(2), 136–14010.1177/154193120905300206Search in Google Scholar

[23] S. D. Gosling, P. J. Rentfrow, W. B. Swann Jr., A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains, Journal of Research in personality, 2003, 37(6), 504–52810.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1Search in Google Scholar

[24] L. E. McCutcheon, The desirability of control scale: Still reliable and valid twenty years later, Current research in social psychology, 2000, 5(15), 225–235Search in Google Scholar

[25] Lego questionnaire, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FJc4ZE4teRYrGjLzih39MYWvQVZGEFLkwoU4tmiBNzI/viewform, (Last accessed 25/06/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[26] Doctor questionnaire, https://bit.ly/2Xz70d2 (Last accessed 25/06/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[27] Dance questionnaire, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc9vHeoRVs9y6vlDDJyH0iA_hPKk_fQdkjOLIeEw9SUVV8_KQ/viewform (Last accessed 25/06/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[28] Biscuits questionnaire, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeT6SqeRUIFun0mIeuvYnmLEvfIPbXQt4IF5dHaYDVUPBPEw/viewform (Last accessed 25/06/2019)Search in Google Scholar

[29] J. M. Burger, H. M. Cooper, The desirability of control, Motivation and emotion, 1979, 3(4), 381–39310.1007/BF00994052Search in Google Scholar

[30] P. Robinette, A. M. Howard, A. R. Wagner, Effect of robot performance on human-robot trust in time-critical situations, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 2017, 47(4), 425–43610.1109/THMS.2017.2648849Search in Google Scholar

[31] B. Meerbeek, J. Hoonhout, P. Bingley, J. M. Terken, The influence of robotA. Tapus, C. Țăpuş, M. J. Matarić, User-robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation personality on perceived and preferred level of user control, Interaction Studies, 2008, 9(2), 204–22910.1075/is.9.2.04meeSearch in Google Scholar

[32] for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy, Intelligent Service Robotics, 2008, 1(2), 169–18310.1007/s11370-008-0017-4Search in Google Scholar

[33] S. Woods, K. Dautenhahn, C. Kaouri, R. te Boekhorst, K. L. Koay, M. L. Walters, Are robots like people?: Relationships between participant and robot personality traits in human-robot interaction studies, Interaction Studies, 2007, 8(2), 281–30510.1075/is.8.2.06wooSearch in Google Scholar

[34] P. Bisconti Lucidi, D. Nardi, Companion robots: the hallucinatory danger of human-robot interactions, In: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, ACM, 2018, 17–2210.1145/3278721.3278741Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-03-31
Accepted: 2019-09-18
Published Online: 2019-12-17

© 2019 Adeline Chanseau et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Downloaded on 28.11.2022 from frontend.live.degruyter.dgbricks.com/document/doi/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0030/html
Scroll Up Arrow